When the Pentagon said earlier this year that it would open ground combat jobs to women, it was cast in terms of giving women equal opportunities in the workplace  the military workplace.

But the move has practical considerations, too. The military needs qualified people to fill its ranks, and it's increasingly harder to find them among men.

"It's fairly common knowledge that our population of military-age young men, who qualify for the military, is declining," Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said in an interview with NPR just after the Pentagon announced that women no longer be excluded from ground combat jobs.

Too many potential male recruits have criminal records, drop out of high school or have drug problems. In addition, the rising obesity rate is also a factor.

Expanding The Candidate Pool

Dempsey and the joint chiefs looked out to the end of the decade and decided they had to recruit more women.

"As a very practical matter, we decided if in 2020 we're going to need these young ladies, and we're going to need to attract as much diversity and as much talent as we can possibly attract, if that's going to be the case, what are we waiting for?" he said

It's a serious concern. Less than 25 percent of young people  both male and female  can actually meet the standards for military enlistment today. Those standards disqualify more men than women. Young men account for three-fourths of all arrests, and in all 50 states, males have a higher high school dropout rate than females.

"Recruiters anecdotally will have fewer issues with a female applicant than they will with a male," says Kathleen Welker, who is with the U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.

Opening more combat jobs to women will help the Army meet its goals, she says.

"It expands the pool of candidates who are eligible to enlist across the board," she says.

Setting Standards

But will women want to sign up for those new jobs in the infantry, armor and artillery units?

Bernard Rostker, a former undersecretary of defense for personnel, says he's doubtful many young women will choose those careers.

"We're not prepared to force women into combat positions. It's a very nontraditional role," he says. "The numbers would likely be quite small.

And then there's the question of whether women who apply can meet the tough physical standards for ground combat. Dempsey and other military leaders will soon review the training program. He said some existing standards  which include everything from pull-ups to carrying heavy loads  need to be revised.

"There are existing standards, many of which haven't been dusted off in a very long time, many of which have been narrowly focused just on physical standards but without the companion piece of psychological and intellectual standards," Dempsey said.

Statements like that are leading some military officers to complain privately that combat training will be watered down to allow more women to pass.

Meanwhile, some women already are trying to meet the existing physical standards. Last fall, two female Marines were the first to try and complete the grueling, 12-week-long Infantry Officer Course. They failed, along with about 20 percent of the men.

Later this month, two more female Marines will see if they can make it.

It’s fairly common knowledge that our population of military-age young men, who qualify for the military, is declining,”
...........................................................
Bullsh*t

There are plenty who qualify, just not too many willing to sign up to spend year after year being sent back into a combat zone.Not too willing to be prosecuted for doing their duty as they see it. Not too many willing to go back to foreign shitholes 3 or 4 times .Not too many willing to serve alongside openly homosexual soldiers.Not too many willing to have their legs and arms blown off while they cannot see the enemy that is killing and wounding them.Not too many willing to train the people that turn on them and kill them. Not too many who are willing to fight a political limited war where there is no win.

“Too many potential male recruits have criminal records, drop out of high school or have drug problems. In addition, the rising obesity rate is also a factor.”

They’re also sick of a country that hates them and the constitution. Why would they want to lose limbs overseas to have Obama take credit for any victory, for them to be blamed by future children for terrorist attacks, as per their education videos?

The base for the Armed forces has been long been conservative males, and now that homosexuals serve openly in the ranks, that base no longer finds the PC military as attractive. So now the PC military must scour the bottom of the barrel to make up for the losses.

“Too many potential male recruits have criminal records, drop out of high school or have drug problems. In addition, the rising obesity rate is also a factor.”

They’re also sick of a country that hates them and the constitution. Why would they want to lose limbs overseas to have Obama take credit for any victory, for them to be blamed by future children for terrorist attacks, as per their education videos?

This is so ignorant.
Name another country that is putting women in front line combat positions. And Isreal doesn’t count. We are not surrounded by insane muslims determined to eliminate us.
We are ruled by one though.

14
posted on 03/28/2013 6:49:54 AM PDT
by Texas resident
(I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on FR)

What to do? Put all the women into ready reaction forces and have a rotation schedule so that they’re all on PMS at the time. Put gays in their own units and let them paint their gear whatever color they want so they’ll be happy. Hold the “straights” in reserve so that the girls and poofters can have a chance to prove themselves under combat conditions. You folks wanted recognition? You’ve got it. Now, LEAD from the front!

i am a very proud US Infantry vet (11c1p) who served under Reagan and there is no way in h#ll i would let my son join the ranks of today. military leadership is all political appointees and words cannot fully vent the disdain i have for the so called CIC. i will not sacrifice my son in the name of the madness that is 21st century America.

17
posted on 03/28/2013 8:33:42 AM PDT
by Finatic
(I ran out of change and have given up on hope. FUBO, I am so sick of your sorry a$$ you effin punk)

USN Vet here and I agree with you.
I would do nothing to encourage ANY of my grandchildren to join today’s Military.
Once they turn 18, that may be their choice but they certainly would not get my backing, though I would support them personally....(where have we heard that before)? <: <:

“Name another country that is putting women in front line combat positions. And Isreal doesnt count. We are not surrounded by insane muslims determined to eliminate us.”

I have it on good authority from someone close to me who spent some time there that Israel does have female snipers, but they no longer put women in combat positions because the female body breaks down over the stress of the physical exertion required.

Here is the key comment from the article: And then there's the question of whether women who apply can meet the tough physical standards for ground combat. Dempsey and other military leaders will soon review the training program. He said some existing standards  which include everything from pull-ups to carrying heavy loads  need to be revised.

As I said earlier on another thread:

I spent 3-1/2 years as an Armor officer in a tank unit back in the late 70s, then spent another 17 years in the Army Reserve. Being an Armor crewman is a physically demanding job. Just riding around in a tank is not the entire job. As an example, to load ammunition into an M-60 tank, you had to have one crewman on the ground lifting each round as a dead weight from the ground over his head to hand it to another crewman who was squatting on the side of the tank. That crewman then had to stand and lift the round over his head and hand it to a third crewman in the turret, who had to stoop down and put it in the rack. Not a job for weaklings.

Then there was changing a track - a job for four strong men.

Are there women who could do this? Probably. But there arent many.

This doesnt even begin to address the pysical demands of being in the field (not to mention combat) for weeks at a time. Men begin to break down, even when physically conditioned.

Again, are there women who can stand up to this? Probably, but not enough to make a difference.

The only way this will work is if they lower the standards - and that is what they are going to do. Some poor tank crew is going to be saddled with a woman, who will stand guard while they do the heavy lifting. Then when they get shipped into combat, she will either physically break down, get pregnant, mentally break down, or some other variant. It happens to men (except the pregnant part, of course), but will happen to women quicker.

This isnt to say that women dont belong in the military. I served with many women who were terrific soldiers - but not in Infantry, not Armor and definitely not Special Forces.

Our military is getting weaker by the day.

Thanks to all of you who felt they had to not vote or vote third party - you are part of the problem.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.